Yup, probably. I don't disagree with you here, I just think the taxes lost won't be much of an issue. Doesn't really matter anyway, I'll be helping with my increased taxes this year.

You're probably right. It was just a thought I had.

I also hadn't thought about online sales that much either, so that's a good point. The last two weapons I bought were at gun shows because I got a good deal on them. I also still had a background check done at the gun show, so I didn't personally experience this "gun show loophole."

I graduated high school in 2007 and every day we had a police car outside the main door, security at every entrance and id's that we always had to carry on us. At the time, this seemed a bit excessive however looking back on it, these were necessary measures not to protect the students from themselves but to protect them from outside dangers. This is the type of security that we need. Obama can talk all day how we shouldn't have guns at school but his kids probably have a dozen armed guards standing around them at their school at all times. Is this because his kids are worth more??? F**K NOOOOOOO!!!! We use armed guards to protect our banks, our airports, train stations, etc... but what about our most prized possessions. I am only 23 but I know that if I asked any parent if they would trade their lives for their childs, they would say yes. So why are we willing to put more protection around what we are willing to give up rather than protecting what we value most????

While I agree with the rest of what you said, I wanted to point out that I was in high school in 1978-81 in Kentucky and we had armed guards with long guns at every entrance/exit in our school. This was long before any of the current things going on, and we never really had a problem with any kind of violence, it was just something that the people came together and said, lets make sure that the school is a safe place for everybody, regardless of if there was a problem before or not.

Yes, it would be as easy for them as it has already been in Canada or Australia or England for 200+ years now. Remember, as recently as 100 years ago, England effectively still "ran the world". They were the World Police, the USA of their time. The English people then certainly couldnt rely on the USA coming in to protect them, and yet their citizens didnt feel that the absence of such offshore protection created a need to be heavily armed themselves to deter tyranny.

Other than disarming Scottland to put down a rebellion, and attempting to disarm the American colonies (leading to a revolution), the English didn't have many gun laws until the pistol act of 1903. Oh- you can put disarming India on there, too. The only times they tried to control guns was to put down rebellion amongst their "subjects".

Quote:

For anyone who really feels that the only thing stopping the gov, your own fellow Americans, from being the next Hitler is the deterrent of you shooting them dead if they try, then man, I don't know what to say.

The other things which you call outlandish, i call possible. Plausible, probably not, but possible, yes. I'm not living in any kind of enslaved paranoia either. It would seem to me with your logic and openness to other possibilities you would concede the mere possibility of absolute power and control over the people by the government.

With it being just a mere possibility, appease me for a moment and tell me what would stop the government from assuming absolute power over the people if the people are not armed?

Yes, it could happen. Lots of things could possibly happen. There aint enough hours in the day, or dollars in the bank, to prepare for every possible outcome, so sometimes it best to start with the things that are most PROBABLE, and then, eventually, if resources permit, work your way down to the things that are merely possible.

There's nothing stopping them from abusing a position of power, just like there was no deterrant for the other countries I mentioned to oppress their citizens either, yet they didnt act on that for hundreds of years.

Whats stopping people from mugging people in wheelchairs? After all, they can't properly fight back, can they? Since there is no threatening deterrent, I guess everyone in a wheelchair has their valuables stolen on a weekly basis... or maybe, people are not always a bunch of savages, who will ruthlessly pounce on a victim in a vulnerable position at the very first opportunity.

You have a panicked public, and the people who want more gun control outnumber those who dont at the moment. Like it or not, that's a fact.

If your argument is that you cant limit someone's guns because it weakens the deterrent against government tyranny, then you better find a way to convince those folks that such tyranny is a far more clear and present danger than some crazed gunman at a school. Just since Newtown, already there have been several shootings as schools (with not the same victim count, fortunately), so good luck with convincing worried parents Hitler is around the corner.

I do agree it sucks for all the responsible gun owners who dont go shooting up schools to be penalized, but I think the public patience to do nothing at all has been exhausted. Something has to change. It would be nice if whatever it was, actually made things safer.. No, I dont think that going from 10 rounds to 7 rounds will do that; but I dont think it will impose an insufferable penalty on recreational gun users either. OK, you gotta change magazines that much more frequently at the gun range, big deal. They're hardly saying you have till Jan 31st to turn in all your firearms, although you'd think they were saying that, given the drama stirred up by some people screaming that the 2nd amendment is being trampled.

They carted people off 110,000 Americans to Manzanar prison camp for no other reason other than race. Yeah, that's what our government is capable of. This government which can't balance a budget, did build a concentration camp and methodically moved 110,000 people from the California coast into the middle of the desert.

This was on a small scale, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future on a larger scale given the right turmoil and circumstances. Tyranny relies on people like you to prosper.

Yes I have. That did happen, and it's easy to make the argument that it's a form of government tyranny all right.

Too bad the 2nd amendment wasnt already in place by 1942, because an armed populace would have been an effective deterrent against the gov doing stuff like that to it's own people.

I also hadn't thought about online sales that much either, so that's a good point. The last two weapons I bought were at gun shows because I got a good deal on them. I also still had a background check done at the gun show, so I didn't personally experience this "gun show loophole."

Total taxes generated by the firearm industry in the US during 2012 will be in the range of $4.5 Billion. My guess is with you guys that it will likely not be much of a hit in NY with the already stringent laws in place.

I think the loop hole they are talking about is the sales that take place between patrons. Here in FL you can see a guy carrying a gun at a gun show, ask him if he wants to sell it and pay him for it on the spot; no background check or waiting period. I have purchased weapons from private parties and actually prefer that in order to keep noses out of my business. But if i were to sell one of my ARs to a private party with no back ground check and it were used to kill innocent people by the person i sold it to and a simple background check would have stopped the sale... well, that's an easy decision to make. By all means cut out private party sales with no background checks. You do need the support of the people to keep these things from happening though.

One way to do that is extreme punishment for the original owner of the firearm should it be used in a crime and there was no FFL transfer done for that sale. The seller should be charged as a willing accessory to the crime committed.

If your firearm is stolen and you fail to report it stolen and it is used in a crime you should be charged as an accessory to that crime, just as if you drove that person to the scene of the crime knowingly.

If you report a firearm stolen more than 3 times in a year your license is suspended. If you report a firearm stolen more than 6 times in your life, you license is revoked.

Why is logic lost on the government?

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

One way to do that is extreme punishment for the original owner of the firearm should it be used in a crime and there was no FFL transfer done for that sale. The seller should be charged as a willing accessory to the crime committed.

If your firearm is stolen and you fail to report it stolen and it is used in a crime you should be charged as an accessory to that crime, just as if you drove that person to the scene of the crime knowingly.

If you report a firearm stolen more than 3 times in a year your license is suspended. If you report a firearm stolen more than 6 times in your life, you license is revoked.

Why is logic lost on the government?

These are very similar ideas I was also thinking of for logical gun control. I would think they would be relatively simple to implement and maintain. Maybe also include something like a required firearms safety class to those who are buying their first (known) firearm.

The problem is you have one side screaming for less regulations than we currently have, and the other side screaming for bans. I'm sure the majority falls in between these two sides, which is why I don't understand the difficulty in finding common ground on logical regulations like suggested above.

Yes I have. That did happen, and it's easy to make the argument that it's a form of government tyranny all right.

Too bad the 2nd amendment wasnt already in place by 1942, because an armed populace would have been an effective deterrent against the gov doing stuff like that to it's own people.

Oh wait....

You have to also imagine the times that this happened. Again you miss some important points from that event. People, especially in large groups, love to have someone or something to blame. When the Japanese attacked pearl harbor, it wasn't fighter planes that were the chosen evil, it was the Japanese. Much like with recent events, the people want something to blame and it would be politically incorrect to blame the mentally ill, not to mention that is too broad a category. So now we have an emotional hatred for guns, much like in the 40's how there was an emotional hatred for the Japanese. The scare was that any asian looking person could be a planted spy or assassin, or part of a secret military getting ready to strike from within. This sweeping emotion back then managed to round up as many asian looking people as they could "for the greater good".

"Why did this not happen after 9-11?" Glad you asked! Because there is a big difference in society between the 40's and now, err well 11 years ago. It would be politically incorrect to incarcerate anyone of arab decent. There were plenty of people who in the aftermath of 9-11 would have loved nothing more. Constant news stories about how muslims were being discriminated against in the U.S. on an almost daily basis. Fortunately for them, in the instant media coverage world we live in that would never have worked unless if it were covert and it probably would have made things worse.

For a better example just look what happened when 2.4 million colonist refused to be disarmed in 1776.

Or did you not read your history books in grade school?

I did read the books. I dont think that everything from 237 years ago is completely relevant for todays very different world. That's not a "better" example, IMHO.

As wise as they were, the founding fathers who composed the constitution and amendments were humans, and fallible. Not perfect.
I dont believe it's disrespectful to suggest that they could not have been expected to possibly predict the kind of world we live in today. Change to society accelerates with time.

In fact, I would suggest that is irrational or illogical to always fall back on the "but the constitution says x, and that cannot be questioned, it shall remain completely relevant for all enternity". I'm not saying flippantly discard it, but I am saying it makes sense to pause and ask "does this still make sense today; and if not, then why continue to cling to it blindly?" That's not treason, it's refusing to mindlessly become an unquestioning slave to dogma.

The point I was trying to make was that even with the 2nd amendment, clearly it provided no deterrent whatsoever to discourage the government from doing oppressive/bad things to it's citizens. 1776 it was not.

But things change. 1942 to 2001 was only 59 years, not 200, and yet what we did NOT see was a repeat of the pearl harbor era internment camps pop-up, (only this time for arabs after sep 11). If society hadnt changed in 59 years, then there would have been such camps, or at least serious public discussion of creating such camps, even if the idea never materialized. That didnt happen.

I've never said I support that particular legislation. It's pointless, but it's also as harmless as it is pointless. Nobody is taking your guns away, they're just making you reload a bit more frequently.

What I've said is that the opposition to such legislation on the grounds that it dismantles the 2nd amendment (or that the 2nd amendment even still provides any sort of deterrent to gov tyranny), are both false premises for an argument, and does nothing to paint the opposer as a reasonable, open-minded, logical individual whose opinion should be seriously considered.

It is pointless, but I also think that in today's climate, the idea that the pro-gun crowd should not have to budge 1 inch on anything, and the anti-gun crowd should give up and walk away with nothing, well, that probably ain't gonna fly either.

Dont argue against the 7 round mag because it's a big step towards enabling the next Hitler on American soil, that makes you sound like a doomsday-prepper style loony to a large chunk of the population. Argue against it because you have a better idea, and present those ideas (like some on this board have thoughtfully done).

I did read the books. I dont think that everything from 237 years ago is completely relevant for todays very different world. That's not a "better" example, IMHO.

As wise as they were, the founding fathers who composed the constitution and amendments were humans, and fallible. Not perfect.
I dont believe it's disrespectful to suggest that they could not have been expected to possibly predict the kind of world we live in today. Change to society accelerates with time.

In fact, I would suggest that is irrational or illogical to always fall back on the "but the constitution says x, and that cannot be questioned, it shall remain completely relevant for all enternity". I'm not saying flippantly discard it, but I am saying it makes sense to pause and ask "does this still make sense today; and if not, then why continue to cling to it blindly?" That's not treason, it's refusing to mindlessly become an unquestioning slave to dogma.

The point I was trying to make was that even with the 2nd amendment, clearly it provided no deterrent whatsoever to discourage the government from doing oppressive/bad things to it's citizens. 1776 it was not.

But things change. 1942 to 2001 was only 59 years, not 200, and yet what we did NOT see was a repeat of the pearl harbor era internment camps pop-up, (only this time for arabs after sep 11). If society hadnt changed in 59 years, then there would have been such camps, or at least serious public discussion of creating such camps, even if the idea never materialized. That didnt happen.

You're simply discarding data or incidents that don't fit your viewpoint. 59 years ago is different than 200, etc. Those are excuses, not real points. I don't think anyone is clinging to legislation blindly but before we allow people to butcher the constitution and change laws blindly, we'd like to know why, and what it accomplishes. So far, EVERYONE in this thread agrees that 10 bullets to 7 bullets does absolutely nothing. So why pass the legislation? Just to make liberals like you feel good? That's what the politicians think.

All I ask is for you to answer the following question honestly.

If Manzanar were expanded to encompass the entire state of California and it's 30,000,000 citizens, do you think it would be easier to accomplish with an armed populace, or unarmed?

I've never said I support that particular legislation. It's pointless, but it's also as harmless as it is pointless.

It's not harmless. Precedent is never "harmless". It's not the job of politicians to enact "behind closed door" legislation just to sooth fears with "harmless" laws. Legislation needs to solve problems which YOU admit, this does not.

What if NY passed a law that they wanted to curb speeding by eliminating the ability to purchase cars that are capable of going over 60 MPH, and banned BMW, Porsche, Ferrari sales. Would you still believe the legislation is harmless? Speed related car accidents kill FAR more people than guns.

Of course you wouldn't agree with that. You'd likely say "Well, I never speed wrecklessly, and I don't even have any speeding tickets. It's the people who drive beyond their capability and hurt others with their wreckless actions after multiple DUIs who should be banned from buying Ferrari. Not me!" ... and you know what? You would be right. The fact is, no one NEEDS a Ferrari, but people want a Ferrari.

I think the most dangerous part of this legislation is people like you think passing "harmless" laws without putting them in front of the people is a harmless action, and you willingly support these people taking away our rights to legally purchase guns we want based simply on the actions of a deranged psycho. It's not ok, it's not harmless as you claim. We are harmed, and we didn't commit the crimes that lead to this legislation.

Yes, it could happen. Lots of things could possibly happen. There aint enough hours in the day, or dollars in the bank, to prepare for every possible outcome, so sometimes it best to start with the things that are most PROBABLE, and then, eventually, if resources permit, work your way down to the things that are merely possible.

There's nothing stopping them from abusing a position of power, just like there was no deterrant for the other countries I mentioned to oppress their citizens either, yet they didnt act on that for hundreds of years.

Whats stopping people from mugging people in wheelchairs? After all, they can't properly fight back, can they? Since there is no threatening deterrent, I guess everyone in a wheelchair has their valuables stolen on a weekly basis... or maybe, people are not always a bunch of savages, who will ruthlessly pounce on a victim in a vulnerable position at the very first opportunity.

You have a panicked public, and the people who want more gun control outnumber those who dont at the moment. Like it or not, that's a fact.

If your argument is that you cant limit someone's guns because it weakens the deterrent against government tyranny, then you better find a way to convince those folks that such tyranny is a far more clear and present danger than some crazed gunman at a school. Just since Newtown, already there have been several shootings as schools (with not the same victim count, fortunately), so good luck with convincing worried parents Hitler is around the corner.

I do agree it sucks for all the responsible gun owners who dont go shooting up schools to be penalized, but I think the public patience to do nothing at all has been exhausted. Something has to change. It would be nice if whatever it was, actually made things safer.. No, I dont think that going from 10 rounds to 7 rounds will do that; but I dont think it will impose an insufferable penalty on recreational gun users either. OK, you gotta change magazines that much more frequently at the gun range, big deal. They're hardly saying you have till Jan 31st to turn in all your firearms, although you'd think they were saying that, given the drama stirred up by some people screaming that the 2nd amendment is being trampled.

Unlucky for you, my brother and his wife are both confined to wheelchairs and they have been mugged, 3 times for my brother. This last time was inside a lowes bathroom in a very nice part of town. Someone had seen them frequent this lowes while ringing the bell for the salvation army at christmas time. They waited for my brother to go into the bathroom and when he was in there the stole the basket on the front of his chair which contained his cell phone, wallet, radio, etc.. So yeah, these things happen.

My argument for not limiting the number or kinds of guns i can own has everything to do with it being my right as an American citizen.

The people screaming about the second amendment being trampled see these new laws, since they are not based in logic as a step closer to dismantling the 2nd amendment. Taking away rights in small chips is something 150,000,000 million gun owners are worried about. Imagine the unrest should the government demand we all turn in our guns. But take away our rights a little bit at a time and before you know it, 2 generations from how we'll only be able to own one firearm, have it locked in a case, the 1 magazine you're allowed to own for it will have to be locked in another case and only have a capacity of 3 rounds. When we get there, having the government offer up $300 for our firearms seems like a decent trade....

Unfortunately, politicians are dirty underhanded people and like selfish little kids, if you give them an inch they will take a mile. This is the main reason it's hit with so much resistance. If they actually proposed something that would logically even have a CHANCE to lower gun crime, gun owners wouldn't be so pissed off. But none of these changes, as you agreed, won't do anything to breed out crazy people.

With regards to your continual comparison between the US government and others around the country i tend to agree with what others have said rendering them apples and oranges. Our government is kind of like that couple who are both married but having an affair. They get their divorces and get married only to find out that both of them are cheating on each other within a year. Like really, no one saw that coming? The start of our government is similar in the respect that they were rebelling against absolute power. What they gained was that power itself. They did their best to guard against that happening and what they thought was the 2nd most important rule to be that guard was the people's right to bear arms. It's a given that they didn't think this new government would become tyrannical within their lives. But they were very aware of the very distinct possibility of a democratic/republic government growing out of control in the future. They penned this 2nd amendment to safe guard the people for whom the government was made for.

Someone mentioned 110,000 Japanese being round up and detained. Ask the native Americans what they think of the early US government, hell, ask them what they think of it now. You can't even ask many tribes because they are all gone, exterminated. People keep talking about Hitler as the boogie man but the US government is responsible for killing between 10 and 114 MILLION Native Americans. The largest genocidal act by any group of people in recorded history. Just another stat where the US ranks #1. The exact number is unknown because the killing of these people who didn't fit into the new american culture weren't always worth documenting.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

Al, I think I read in another post of yours that you own no firearms and have no children. I'm sorry but you assume a lot of things, which is especially interesting considering you have basically no experience with firearms at all. You're coming off as pretty much the typical liberal democrat (which I know you're not based on some of your past discussions). Most of the hard liner gun control advocates around the country right now have absolutely no experience with firearms except what they see in the movies. In your last big post, it almost seems as if you would be for a complete firearms ban. Really?

To expand on what MediaArtist said, it most certainly isn't harmless. The POTUS is using Executive Order to push a political agenda that doesn't solve anything, and will spend even more money. That in itself is a dangerous path, and anyone who truly respects freedom should be concerned. In NY State, it's a bit different but not really. A law shouldn't be passed if it is pointless, that's the bottom line. Allowing them to pass because you think they don't hurt anyone is even worse.

Putting the corrupt government taking over the people argument aside, what about people who hunt? What about people who compete? What about those who want to defend their homes and families? They aren't allowed to because a miniscule amount of guns are used to kill people in mass? There is a better solution, and the politicians are just using people's emotion to pass something as soon as possible instead of taking the time to logically think about proper legislation that will address a myriad of issues, one of which is PROPER ENFORCEMENT of current regulations. Like I said before, they can come up with whatever laws they want, but if they aren't enforced it will just be a joke. This is a slippery slope to further regulation and a future complete firearms ban.

I did read the books. I dont think that everything from 237 years ago is completely relevant for todays very different world. That's not a "better" example, IMHO.

As wise as they were, the founding fathers who composed the constitution and amendments were humans, and fallible. Not perfect.
I dont believe it's disrespectful to suggest that they could not have been expected to possibly predict the kind of world we live in today. Change to society accelerates with time.

In fact, I would suggest that is irrational or illogical to always fall back on the "but the constitution says x, and that cannot be questioned, it shall remain completely relevant for all enternity". I'm not saying flippantly discard it, but I am saying it makes sense to pause and ask "does this still make sense today; and if not, then why continue to cling to it blindly?" That's not treason, it's refusing to mindlessly become an unquestioning slave to dogma.

The point I was trying to make was that even with the 2nd amendment, clearly it provided no deterrent whatsoever to discourage the government from doing oppressive/bad things to it's citizens. 1776 it was not.

But things change. 1942 to 2001 was only 59 years, not 200, and yet what we did NOT see was a repeat of the pearl harbor era internment camps pop-up, (only this time for arabs after sep 11). If society hadnt changed in 59 years, then there would have been such camps, or at least serious public discussion of creating such camps, even if the idea never materialized. That didnt happen.

Al, you're starting to piss me off because I am starting to agree with you... in part. Things do need to be relooked at from time to time. This is something i see daily as a Marine. Marines absolutely love our history and we are nostalgic as fuck. There are many order and directives and such that once made sense but now....don't. We still blindly enforce them unknowing of the original purpose only referencing things we had heard and basically folk lore.

Here is a little analogy I love;
In a cage you have 5 monkeys. Hanging in the center above the monkeys is a banana. Whenever the monkeys attempt to go the banana they are hosed with water, which upsets them. This is done enough to make the monkeys not attempt to get the banana. Put the hose away. Now take one of the original 5 monkeys out and replace it with a new monkey. The new monkey will attempt to go for the banana and will be beaten by the original 4 still remaining. He doesn't know why, but he understands that if he goes for the banana, he's getting a beating. Now replace another of the 4 original with a new monkey. The new monkey will attempt to go for the banana and will be beaten by the remaining original 3 and the 1st replacement. Continue this process until you have none of the original monkeys in the cage. They know that if one attempts to get the banana they have to beat him, but they don't know why.

Many laws, including the constitution do need to be revised for the times. I don't know if you were trying to say that the 59 year difference isn't significant enough only based on the number, but in case you are that point again needs further thought. The change in societies around the world have changed more in the last 60 years than the 60 years before them. Imagine going back 20 years and showing someone a smart phone for instance. Society has changed in so many ways mostly based around technology and the ease of access to information from anywhere and incredibly fast speeds.

Common ground does need to be found for the 2nd amendment issue. Both sides are widely out of control in their arguments. Again I love guns because they are fun to shoot, I am a recreational shooter. Right now however I am afraid that I will not make it back to the states soon enough to buy the kind of firearms I want before a ban is pushed through without a logical, sensible, civilized discussion.

If Manzanar were expanded to encompass the entire state of California and it's 30,000,000 citizens, do you think it would be easier to accomplish with an armed populace, or unarmed?

If that extremely implausible scenario where to unfold, then yes of course, it would be easier to do so if nobody was armed.

If If If... If the sea level rises 10 feet, millions would flood, they should focus on moving to higher ground right away. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. That's playing the game that never ends...

I beleive (and of course you are free to disagree) that many other things that are far more likely than the Gov locking down the state whose GDP is larger than that of all but 8 countries on the entire planet. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

You are more likely to die in a car accident in the next 5 years, than to witness a Nazi-Germany style transformation here, I think many would agree with that.

If you accept that is a reasonable statement, than for every minute you spend worrying about this legislation, do you spend 2 or more minutes bolting armor onto your car to increase your chance of surviving a collision ? The bigger risk should attract more attention, right? Or, do you ignore that, and focus your worry on events which are not likely to happen, and ignore the real and present dangers in todays' world.

If that extremely implausible scenario where to unfold, then yes of course, it would be easier to do so if nobody was armed.

Pretty sure Jews thought it was "extremely implausible" to have millions of them shoved into ovens by a dictator as well.

At least you understand the point of the 2nd Amendment, you just don't "agree" with it. That's fine, but changing or modifying the spirit of law should be put in front of the people, not behind closed doors.

As for your other points, most of it is dishonest strawmen, so forgive me if I don't address those points. They aren't worth the time or effort.